Search This Blog

Friday, June 22, 2007

Why did the Ice Core man get 'Iced'?

Once upon a time, and for millennia before then, carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere were low and stable. Then came the industrial revolution and CO2 levels began to rise. The more man industrialized, the more that CO2 -- and the temperature -- rose. In the last half century, with industrialization at unprecedented levels, CO2 reached levels unprecedented in the human history. This is the story of global warming.

This story is a fable, says Zbigniew Jaworowski, past chairman of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, a participant or chairman of some 20 Advisory Groups of the International Atomic Energy Agency and the United Nations Environmental Program, and current chair of the Scientific Committee of the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw.

Hmm, a "just-so story?" Evolutionists eat those for breakfast and spit them out in triplicate for lunch. No big surprise here.

Dr. Jaworowski agrees that CO2 levels rose in the last half century. Starting in 1958, direct, real-time measurements of CO2 have been systematically taken at a state-of-the-art measuring station in Hawaii. These measurements, considered the world's most reliable, are a good basis for science by bodies like the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the agency that is co-ordinating the worldwide effort to stop global warming.

But the UN does not rely on direct real-time measurements for the period prior to 1958. "The IPCC relies on icecore data -- on air that has been trapped for hundreds or thousands of years deep below the surface," Dr. Jaworowski explains. "These ice cores are a foundation of the global warming hypothesis, but the foundation is groundless -- the IPCC has based its global-warming hypothesis on arbitrary assumptions and these assumptions, it is now clear, are false."OF course the IPCC is operating on assumptions and it those assumptions that predetermine what they will conclude. No big surprise here....

Ice, the IPCC believes, precisely preserves the ancient air, allowing for a precise reconstruction of the ancient atmosphere. For this to be true, no component of the trapped air can escape from the ice. Neither can the ice ever become liquid. Neither can the various gases within air ever combine or separate.

This perfectly closed system, frozen in time, is a fantasy. "Liquid water is common in polar snow and ice, even at temperatures as low as -72C," Dr. Jaworowski explains, "and we also know that in cold water, CO2 is 70 times more soluble than nitrogen and 30 times more soluble than oxygen, guaranteeing that the proportions of the various gases that remain in the trapped, ancient air will change. Moreover, under the extreme pressure that deep ice is subjected to -- 320 bars, or more than 300 times normal atmospheric pressure -- high levels of CO2 get squeezed out of ancient air."

Because of these various properties in ancient air, one would expect that, over time, ice cores that started off with high levels of CO2 would become depleted of excess CO2, leaving a fairly uniform base level of CO2 behind. In fact, this is exactly what the ice cores show.

"According to the ice-core samples, CO2 levels vary little over time," Dr. Jaworowski sates. "The ice core data from the Taylor Dome in Antarctica shows almost no change in the level of atmospheric CO2 over the last 7,000 to 8,000 years -- it varied between 260 parts per million and 264 parts per million.

"Yet other indicators of past CO2 levels, such as fossil leaf stomata, show that CO2 levels over the past 7,000 to 8,000 years varied by more than 50 parts per million, between 270 and 326 parts per million. We also know that there have been great fluctuations in temperature over that time period -- the Little Age just 500 years ago, for example. If the icecore record was reliable, and CO2 levels reflected temperatures, why wouldn't the ice-core data have shown CO2 levels to fall during the Little Ice Age? "

I would point Dr. Jaworowski to evidences that his 7-8,000 years is more likely to be 4-5,000 years, as per previous posts I have made. But not to quibble, we go on...

Dr. Jaworowski has devoted much of his professional life to the study of the composition of the atmosphere, as part of his work to understand the consequences of radioactive fallout from nuclear-weapons testing and nuclear reactor accidents. After taking numerous ice samples over the course of a dozen field trips to glaciers in six continents, and studying how contaminants travel through ice over time, he came to realize how fraught with error ice-core samples were in reconstructing the atmosphere. The Chernobyl accident, whose contaminants he studied in the 1990s in a Scandinavian glacier, provided the most illumination.

"This ice contained extremely high radioactivity of cesium-137 from the Chernobyl fallout, more than a thousand times higher than that found in any glacier from nuclear-weapons fallout, and more than 100 times higher than found elsewhere from the Chernobyl fallout," he explained. "This unique contamination of glacier ice revealed how particulate contaminants migrated, and also made sense of other discoveries I made during my other glacier expeditions. It convinced me that ice is not a closed system, suitable for an exact reconstruction of the composition of the past atmosphere."

Yes, and this is another reason that there are so many interpretations of ice core data, because ice almost has a life of its own and is not at all a closed system.

Because of the high importance of this realization, in 1994 Dr. Jaworowski, together with a team from the Norwegian Institute for Energy Technics, proposed a research project on the reliability of trace-gas determinations in the polar ice. The prospective sponsors of the research refused to fund it, claiming the research would be "immoral" if it served to undermine the foundations of climate research.

"Immoral." To discover that global warming is not happening. Wow. Talk about taking on the persona of a toddler hiding his eyes so he doesn't have to see something unpleasant! This is science????!!!

The refusal did not come as a surprise. Several years earlier, in a peer-reviewed article published by the Norwegian Polar Institute, Dr. Jaworowski criticized the methods by which CO2 levels were ascertained from ice cores, and cast doubt on the global-warming hypothesis. The institute's director, while agreeing to publish his article, also warned Dr. Jaworowski that "this is not the way one gets research projects." Once published, the institute came under fire, especially since the report soon sold out and was reprinted. Said one prominent critic, "this paper puts the Norsk Polarinstitutt in disrepute." Although none of the critics faulted Dr. Jaworowski's science, the institute nevertheless fired him to maintain its access to funding.

Sadly, global warming whistle-blowers have no recourse but to get fired and go away. Notice that in this case the doctor's institute did reluctantly publish his paper before eventually firing him. More often than not, such institutions ignore a paper like this and will not even publish it. I have to give them a little credit for that much.

Is there an alternative to ice-core samples, which are but proxies from which assumptions about the historical composition of the atmosphere can be made? "Yes, there are several other proxies, and they lead to different findings about CO2," Dr. Jaworowski states. "But we don't need to rely on proxies at all.

"Scientists from numerous disciplines have been examining CO2 since the beginning of the 19th century, and they have left behind a record of tens of thousands of direct, real-time measurements. These measurements tell a far different story about CO2 -- they demonstrate, for example, that CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have fluctuated greatly, and that several times in the past 200 years CO2 concentrations have exceeded today's levels.

"The IPCC rejects these direct measurements, some taken by Nobel Prize winners. They prefer the view of CO2 as seen through ice."

Why is that, do you suppose? Well, if not believing in global warming is "immoral", then global warming must be some kind of religious belief for the IPCC rather than a scientific endeavor. Those who don't agree with them, "deniers", are heretics.

CV OF A DENIER:Zbigniew Jaworowski is chairman of the Scientific Council of the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw, where he has held various posts since 1973. He was a principal investigator of three research projects of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and of four research projects of the International Atomic Energy Agency. The author of four books and 300 scientific papers, he has held posts with the Centre d'Etude Nucleaires near Paris; the Biophysical Group of the Institute of Physics, University of Oslo; the Norwegian Polar Research Institute and the National Institute for Polar Research in Tokyo.

So why did the Ice Core man get iced? Because he preferred to seek truth rather than march in lockstep with the purveyors of the "global warming just-so stories" and his evidence was so damaging to their beliefs they had to make sure to fire him and try to "make the bad man go away" rather than to consider what he proposed fit the available evidences. They didn't want to know. They don't want to know. This is true in the case of global warming, just as it is true in the case of evolution. In both cases, the majority will just try to drown out the opposition with a flood of verbiage and hostility, redirecting the focus off of the actual evidences.

29 comments:

Taxandrian
said...

Radar, I didn't read all that but just want to ask you a simply question: why do you abandon your older topics and the discussion going on there, and rather change subject and start posting new articles?If you are not interested in any discussion but only wish to prove your point by sheer volume of articles, please let me know so I can stop wasting my time on checking in here looking for a reply. It would be the corteous thing to do, methinks.

"I would point Dr. Jaworowski to evidences that his 7-8,000 years is more likely to be 4-5,000 years, as per previous posts I have made."

Actually, if you're trying to squish 800,000 years of ice core data into the Bible's speculative interpretation of 6,000 years, then Dr. Jaworowski's 7-8,000 years only represent something close to 50 or 60 years.

"Radar, I didn't read all that but just want to ask you a simply question: why do you abandon your older topics and the discussion going on there, and rather change subject and start posting new articles?"

It's because Radar tends to start with the conclusion in mind, which makes it impossible for him to approach almost anything with an open mind. The moment you examine his reasoning (or lack thereof) in even just a little bit more detail, he doesn't know where to go. Lacking both the ability to change his mind as he is introduced to additional facts and arguments as well as the strength of character to admit to such a change in opinion in public, he has no choice but to pursue the same process over and over again:

1. Make outrageous claim based on a number of fallacies2. Be confronted with questions and explanations of the fallacies of his claim3. Dodge - pretend to misunderstand, ignore, post articles on other subjects4. Months later: pretend that he won the argument and that he answered the questions5. Repeat as desired

(Oh, and once in a while complain that he supposedly stands unfairly accused of not answering questions, even though this is consistently and demonstrably true.)

Ad hominem attacks are so wonderful, logically. Nice to see them creep in, ha ha!

Creeper, 800,000 years of ice cores is your opinion and in no way a proven fact, any more than my statement that they represent maybe 5,000 years. You don't seem to understand the difference between operative and historical science but I will post on that soon and try to clear that up once and for all.

There are multiple discussions going on here because I would frankly get bored with just one of them. I invite taxandrian to ask the question he believes I so discourteously abandoned that he had asked?

Oh, and the Boojums post focuses on ad hominem attacks on the Doctor and misses the primary point he was making, which remains unchallenged - that the methodology used to examine C02 in ice cores is fatally flawed because of so many problems with the model so that the bubbles in the ice cannot possibly be considred pristine or accurate. That boojums post reminds me of a magic show, in which you draw somebody's attention one way while performing sleight-of-hand elsewhere. The Doctors credentials may make a nice straw man to attack whereas his main point remains standing.

"Ad hominem attacks are so wonderful, logically. Nice to see them creep in, ha ha!"

You may be confused about what an ad hominem is. I recall you misusing the term before. Even a very cursory glance at the link I posted makes it clear that the commenter in question does not focus on the person at the expense of the argument. On the contrary, he addresses his claims directly and in great detail.

What you may have mistaken for an ad hominem was the author addressing an apparent "appeal to authority" early on in Dr. Jaworowski's statement. Actually, the author asserts this: "Jaworowski does not need to have credentials as an expert in gas measurement from ice cores in order to criticize those who do have them; if his arguments are valid, they can stand on their own." That's gotta be the weirdest so-called "ad hominem" attack I've ever seen.

"Creeper, 800,000 years of ice cores is your opinion and in no way a proven fact, any more than my statement that they represent maybe 5,000 years."

You misunderstand my argument in this instance. When Dr. Jaworowski mentions 7-8,000 years worth of ice cores, he does so in the context of understanding this to be a part of what he would consider a totality of 800,000 years of ice cores (though you may disagree). The ice cores he refers to represent about 1% of the total ice core data. Relating this back to your belief that those ice core data can only represent 6,000 years in total, then the same proportion that Jaworowski was referring to would only represent about 60 years in your worldview. (Not that that aspect of your worldview has ever been presented as a falsifiable hypothesis and tested, as far as I know, but I'm just doing you the favor of pointing out the logical consequences of your ill-supported arguments.)

BTW, the conclusion that ice core data represent about 800,000 years is a little more than my own personal humble opinion. It is backed up by substantial scientific research.

"You don't seem to understand the difference between operative and historical science but I will post on that soon and try to clear that up once and for all."

Looking forward to you "clearing that up". I'm getting a rough idea of the fallacies you have in mind already...

"There are multiple discussions going on here because I would frankly get bored with just one of them."

Funny how you get bored with them right when you can't answer a question or some glaring contradiction is pointed out to you. Yes, keep running away and changing the subject, just because you're getting "bored". And a few months later, when you think nobody's watching, try to pretend you won the argument.

"I invite taxandrian to ask the question he believes I so discourteously abandoned that he had asked?"

Here's a partial listing of the questions you've discourteously abandoned over the past number of posts (taxandrian didn't restrict this to his own questions, btw, so I assume you weren't intending on artificially restricting taxandrian's point):

1. [Regarding inbreeding:] Wouldn't homozygosity remain a problem just the same? Homozygosity is a real problem as regards inbreeding, and this "pure DNA" response you've cooked up completely fails to address it.

2. How would you propose such [DNA] mutations were subsequently introduced into the "new and perfect" gene pool? You've certainly come around to the genetic mutation perspective. Are "creation scientists" examining the possibility of DNA being "pure" and subsequently mutated, as well as what kind of mutation rates this requires and whether we can observe such a rate around us today? Or are you just making stuff up?

3. Could you explain which laws believers should adhere to, if not the Law mentioned in Deuteronomy? Where are these absolute laws? And why should non-believers subscribe to the Deuteronomy laws?

4. How are these two different plants [the pines used for dendrochronology and the different pines that Batten chose for an ill-suited comparison] classified according to biblical "kinds"?

5. "[...] there is no reason for these trees to have same pattern of climate with age if the cause of the patterns seen is false and missing rings."

Radar, if you disagree with that, could you explain your reasoning?

6. "In point of fact, from what we can determine from tree rings, it is incredibly simplistic to count 4800 rings and then assign an age of 4800 years. Many types of trees with 4800 years will be 3600 years old or even younger."

As was clearly pointed out to you more than once, this is not what scientists do. (Is there a reason why you're choosing to ignore this point?)

7. Not only that, but this line of argument completely ignores that this works in both directions, i.e. that not only can there be more than one line per year, it is also possible to skip years. Without additional specific data, it is not possible to simply assume that these aberrations will work in favor of a young Earth.

If "creation scientists" have come up with detailed studies on this subject that provide any coherent explanation (i.e. not just vague attempts to cast doubt on mainstream science) from a YEC perspective, by all means present it.

8. Re. "Many types of trees with 4800 years will be 3600 years old or even younger" - which types of trees with 4800 years will be 3600 years old or even younger? Can you be specific and let us know what you are basing your statement on?

9. "I used arguments about data from the last approximately 4500 years to make those points."

Exactly. And what is that data from the last approximately 4500 years based on? This is one of the questions you've been consistently avoiding over the last few months.

10. ”He [a generalized atheist] is, however, certainly a great danger to himself, for if he successfully deludes himself into believing his own philosophy he will be subject to harsh judgement by his Maker later on.”

What if you have it wrong and, say, the Muslims have it right and you’d be subjected to whatever happens to “infidels” in Islam after you die? Wouldn’t that mean you’re being a great danger to yourself?

11. "Maybe we don't have recorded temperatures, but grapes growing in England and Greenland being green are evidences nonetheless."

And what dating methods are used to determine the age of those grapes and that vegetation? Anything that is remotely consistent with a young Earth? If you accept that, say, radiometric dating indicates the age of something to be 1,000 years, would you still accept it if it indicates the age of something to be 10,000 years? If not, then you can't accept the dating of 1,000 years either, as the entire method, according to you, is questionable.

Also, do the dating of such grapes/vegetation sync up with the "800,000 years of ice cores squished into 6,000 years" scenario?

12. "If it weren't for the bible, would murder be legal?"

13. So what's the story, Radar - do you have a source for that 11% data [referring to the proportion of Christians in the prison population] or don't you?

And how does it compare if you make the same distinctions among the general population?

14. Anyhow, how is it possible that there even ARE Christians in jail? Shouldn't they all be atheists?

15. So, if atheists, by your own admission, are able to lead responsible, peaceful lives, without bothering or harming anyone....why bother?Surely you'd rather have a peaceful atheist than a violent Christian?

16. "I even saw where now the General Secretary of the UN was blaming the atrocities being committed in Darfur on global warming(!)"

Sounds like something you made up... you wouldn't have a link to that transcript, would you?

That should do for now. You asked for one question, you got sixteen. And no, they weren't answered in ways that "we don't like"; they weren't answered, period.

"Oh, and the Boojums post focuses on ad hominem attacks on the Doctor"

Of the 22 points identified in the post, you might put up a (very weak and easily discredited) argument that one of them is an ad hominem attack. Another one is just a throw-away comment... and that's it. The Boojums post clearly does not focus on ad hominem attacks.

"and misses the primary point he was making, which remains unchallenged - that the methodology used to examine C02 in ice cores is fatally flawed because of so many problems with the model so that the bubbles in the ice cannot possibly be considered pristine or accurate."

"Remains unchallenged"? The authors address the "problems with the model" in items 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15. Could you please actually read the post and specify which problem you think goes unaddressed?

"That boojums post reminds me of a magic show, in which you draw somebody's attention one way while performing sleight-of-hand elsewhere."

Isn't that what you're trying to do by blasting a bunch of pasted articles every time you get stuck and can't answer an inconvenient question?

The boojums post takes a document and works through it methodically from beginning to end. The part you said "remained unchallenged" was challenged in 12 out of 22 points. If there's anything in particular in Jaworowski's document that you think the blog post unfairly failed to address, by all means point it out.

(BTW, there's also a nice casual rebuttal to the notion that no money is to be made swimming against the stream on global warming. Maybe you missed it. You'd have to read the article.)

"The Doctors credentials may make a nice straw man to attack whereas his main point remains standing."

That's a clear giveaway that you didn't really get far into the article. "Bored" again?

I guess I'll have to do an entire post just to answer the last anonymous post....although I have one or two post sceduled already first. But I will go over each point of it anyway within the next two-three days.

Sorry, but if I answer that very, very long comment on several subjects it will have to be in form of a post.

Why is that? Surely there are questions which you can answer in their respective topics? For instance, take your topic about 'The town where God was not allowed', where both creeper and I would like to see your data which says that 11% of all prison inmates are Christian. Surely this is as simple as posting a link there, why need a whole new post for that? I take it you DO have a source available for the data you mentioned?Radar, from your earlier comments it seems as if you don't even read the comments in your older posts. What is it that scares you from doing so, while earlier you said that intelligent discussion is welcomed?

"1. [Regarding inbreeding:] Wouldn't homozygosity remain a problem just the same? Homozygosity is a real problem as regards inbreeding, and this "pure DNA" response you've cooked up completely fails to address it."

No, this only becomes a problem after enough mutations in the gene pool have entered in. In early man, there would not be this phenomenon.

"2. How would you propose such [DNA] mutations were subsequently introduced into the "new and perfect" gene pool? You've certainly come around to the genetic mutation perspective. Are "creation scientists" examining the possibility of DNA being "pure" and subsequently mutated, as well as what kind of mutation rates this requires and whether we can observe such a rate around us today? Or are you just making stuff up?"

Yes, they do consider the original DNA of all creatures to be without mutation and that mutations creep in as "errors' within the information strings of DNA, bringing in various malformations and maladies. Mutations are almost always bad for an organism, if not lethat. Mutations that enter in to the genetic code have occurred over the centuries, as has the loss of much of the original genetic information.

"3. Could you explain which laws believers should adhere to, if not the Law mentioned in Deuteronomy? Where are these absolute laws? And why should non-believers subscribe to the Deuteronomy laws?"

I did cover that in great detail already....

"4. How are these two different plants [the pines used for dendrochronology and the different pines that Batten chose for an ill-suited comparison] classified according to biblical "kinds"?"

Kind, as far as we can tell from the Bible definition, is an organism that can mate with others within that kind but no other than that kind. Natural selection has brought about loss of genetic information to the point where there are now animals that would have been considered within a kind that cannot now successfully mate. Natural selection has brought about rapid and widespread speciation. So rather than a dog "kind" we have various dogs and wolves and coyotes and so on and rather than a horse "kind", there are donkeys and horses and mules and zebras and so on.

"5. "[...] there is no reason for these trees to have same pattern of climate with age if the cause of the patterns seen is false and missing rings."

Radar, if you disagree with that, could you explain your reasoning?"

The post contained the reasoning. You can argue against it but I don't need to repost it.

"6. "In point of fact, from what we can determine from tree rings, it is incredibly simplistic to count 4800 rings and then assign an age of 4800 years. Many types of trees with 4800 years will be 3600 years old or even younger."

As was clearly pointed out to you more than once, this is not what scientists do. (Is there a reason why you're choosing to ignore this point?)"

First, what I said is factual. Second, although dendrochronologists don't simply do it that way, plenty of laymen think that they do and such disinformation is passed around in public schools. We still find Haeckel embroyo charts and Miller-Urey experiments being taught in public schools to this very day.

I didn't say that is all they do, although it is part of how they determine age. Again, I have posted more than once some opposing views on how to read tree rings. Go ahead and disagree.

"7. Not only that, but this line of argument completely ignores that this works in both directions, i.e. that not only can there be more than one line per year, it is also possible to skip years. Without additional specific data, it is not possible to simply assume that these aberrations will work in favor of a young Earth.

If "creation scientists" have come up with detailed studies on this subject that provide any coherent explanation (i.e. not just vague attempts to cast doubt on mainstream science) from a YEC perspective, by all means present it."

I have. You guys tend to ignore it when I post stuff like that.

"8. Re. "Many types of trees with 4800 years will be 3600 years old or even younger" - which types of trees with 4800 years will be 3600 years old or even younger? Can you be specific and let us know what you are basing your statement on?"

Back at you, that the simple number of tree rings doesn't determine the age.

"9. "I used arguments about data from the last approximately 4500 years to make those points."

Exactly. And what is that data from the last approximately 4500 years based on? This is one of the questions you've been consistently avoiding over the last few months."

Oh, I have not! I specified all sorts of historic notations of growing seasons, general weather conditions and so on from the records of mankind before actual temperature readings were being taken. These historical records are often confirmed by archaeological digs, although the dates that are given are often pretty out of whack from my perspective.

"10. ”He [a generalized atheist] is, however, certainly a great danger to himself, for if he successfully deludes himself into believing his own philosophy he will be subject to harsh judgement by his Maker later on.”

What if you have it wrong and, say, the Muslims have it right and you’d be subjected to whatever happens to “infidels” in Islam after you die? Wouldn’t that mean you’re being a great danger to yourself?"

If that is true, yes.

"11. "Maybe we don't have recorded temperatures, but grapes growing in England and Greenland being green are evidences nonetheless."

And what dating methods are used to determine the age of those grapes and that vegetation? Anything that is remotely consistent with a young Earth? If you accept that, say, radiometric dating indicates the age of something to be 1,000 years, would you still accept it if it indicates the age of something to be 10,000 years? If not, then you can't accept the dating of 1,000 years either, as the entire method, according to you, is questionable."

I'll be posting on that, probably on Monday the 9th of July or thereabouts.

"12. "If it weren't for the bible, would murder be legal?""

I don't know. I do know that when God declared murder to be illegal, it was commonplace among the people of the time.

"13. So what's the story, Radar - do you have a source for that 11% data [referring to the proportion of Christians in the prison population] or don't you?

And how does it compare if you make the same distinctions among the general population?"

I took all sorts of information from Barna resources to cobble that together. I did make a comparison to the general population at that time, remember?

"14. Anyhow, how is it possible that there even ARE Christians in jail? Shouldn't they all be atheists?"

Some become Christians after being jailed. Most were just bad at being Christian. I don't think that atheists will necessarily break the law, what I do say is that an atheist has no absolute law he is sworn to follow. A Christian has an absolute moral code, but he may yet break it.

"15. So, if atheists, by your own admission, are able to lead responsible, peaceful lives, without bothering or harming anyone....why bother?Surely you'd rather have a peaceful atheist than a violent Christian?"

I don't hate atheists and I don't discriminate against them. It would be more pleasant to live next to a peaceful atheist than a violent Christian. But from his point of view, I would rather he would become a Christian for his own sake rather than my own.

It's simple. I believe atheists will be judged and go to hell. I don't want them to go to hell. I would rather tell them about Christ and be rejected than not have the gumption to at least mention it to them.

If you were in a room full of people and saw one of those movie "bombs' with the red digital readout counting down and it showed three minutes left, would you just leave quietly and let everyone else have the choice as to whether they want to notice the bomb, or would you yell at everyone to run out of the door? Me? I'm yelling!

"16. "I even saw where now the General Secretary of the UN was blaming the atrocities being committed in Darfur on global warming(!)"

Sounds like something you made up... you wouldn't have a link to that transcript, would you?"

I did answer with a link, but you guys could have found it easily enough with a Google search anyway, right? Not sure why you didn't do that first.

"1. [Regarding inbreeding:] Wouldn't homozygosity remain a problem just the same? Homozygosity is a real problem as regards inbreeding, and this "pure DNA" response you've cooked up completely fails to address it."

No, this only becomes a problem after enough mutations in the gene pool have entered in. In early man, there would not be this phenomenon.

If this is anything other than your own conjecture (which I'm kinda doubting it is...), could you point us to any scientific research to explain both of these questions:

a.) Why would homozygosity not be a problem for “pure DNA”? (Yes, this is the original question again, you simply failed to answer it at all.)

b.) What “level of purity” would be needed for homozygosity not to be a problem, and what rate of DNA mutation would we need to see over the last approx. 4,000 years for this to be true? Can we observe such a rate of mutation today?

"2. How would you propose such [DNA] mutations were subsequently introduced into the "new and perfect" gene pool? You've certainly come around to the genetic mutation perspective. Are "creation scientists" examining the possibility of DNA being "pure" and subsequently mutated, as well as what kind of mutation rates this requires and whether we can observe such a rate around us today? Or are you just making stuff up?"

Yes, they do consider the original DNA of all creatures to be without mutation and that mutations creep in as "errors' within the information strings of DNA, bringing in various malformations and maladies. Mutations are almost always bad for an organism, if not lethat. Mutations that enter in to the genetic code have occurred over the centuries, as has the loss of much of the original genetic information.

Again, please point us to the relevant research (done by "them") regarding mutation rates. In this case, the old complaint about “mutations almost always being bad for an organism" (which is not a problem for an old earth or the theory of evolution) actually works against you, as you’re relying on very fast and successful DNA mutations to be true for your conjecture to hold.

"3. Could you explain which laws believers should adhere to, if not the Law mentioned in Deuteronomy? Where are these absolute laws? And why should non-believers subscribe to the Deuteronomy laws?"

I did cover that in great detail already....

Yes you did, though so far what you’ve presented is entirely in line with mankind adjusting its own laws as moral understanding is gained. You didn’t answer, for example, when and how God decided that it was okay that the absolute law dictating that all prisoners of war be put to death was annulled.

"4. How are these two different plants [the pines used for dendrochronology and the different pines that Batten chose for an ill-suited comparison] classified according to biblical "kinds"?"

Kind, as far as we can tell from the Bible definition, is an organism that can mate with others within that kind but no other than that kind. Natural selection has brought about loss of genetic information to the point where there are now animals that would have been considered within a kind that cannot now successfully mate. Natural selection has brought about rapid and widespread speciation. So rather than a dog "kind" we have various dogs and wolves and coyotes and so on and rather than a horse "kind", there are donkeys and horses and mules and zebras and so on.

Please read the question again. Your stock answer has nothing to do with the question.

"6. "In point of fact, from what we can determine from tree rings, it is incredibly simplistic to count 4800 rings and then assign an age of 4800 years. Many types of trees with 4800 years will be 3600 years old or even younger."

As was clearly pointed out to you more than once, this is not what scientists do. (Is there a reason why you're choosing to ignore this point?)"

First, what I said is factual. Second, although dendrochronologists don't simply do it that way, plenty of laymen think that they do and such disinformation is passed around in public schools. We still find Haeckel embroyo charts and Miller-Urey experiments being taught in public schools to this very day.

I didn't say that is all they do, although it is part of how they determine age. Again, I have posted more than once some opposing views on how to read tree rings. Go ahead and disagree.

So you respond with (1) a lie (“what I said is factual”) and (2) an admission followed by an evasion (“although dendrochronologists don’t simply do it that way [...]). Couple of comments/questions in response:

a. Even if it is part of what scientists do, their method as a whole does not make the fundamental mistake that you claim it does, and therefore your claim is either wrong.

b. What is the average margin of error of the tree rings of a particular species in a particular environment?

"7. Not only that, but this line of argument completely ignores that this works in both directions, i.e. that not only can there be more than one line per year, it is also possible to skip years. Without additional specific data, it is not possible to simply assume that these aberrations will work in favor of a young Earth.

If "creation scientists" have come up with detailed studies on this subject that provide any coherent explanation (i.e. not just vague attempts to cast doubt on mainstream science) from a YEC perspective, by all means present it."

I have. You guys tend to ignore it when I post stuff like that.

Um, no. You have not.

If you think you have, then tell us where.

You publish an RSS feed, so it’s unlikely that any of your posts go missing, and I’m pretty dang sure that one thing neither you nor any creationist outfit have presented is a coherent explanation of tree rings, ice cores etc. Since you now claim that you’ve already done so, all it takes is a link. If that’s a problem for you (as it appears to be about your apparent fantasy about an 11% Christian prison population...), simply the title of the post will do.

"8. Re. "Many types of trees with 4800 years will be 3600 years old or even younger" - which types of trees with 4800 years will be 3600 years old or even younger? Can you be specific and let us know what you are basing your statement on?"

Back at you, that the simple number of tree rings doesn't determine the age.

Alas, that’s where the curiosity of most YECs ends – as long as one can cast some vague doubts, there’s no need to investigate further. Which is why creation science is in the abysmal state it’s in.

"9. "I used arguments about data from the last approximately 4500 years to make those points."

Exactly. And what is that data from the last approximately 4500 years based on? This is one of the questions you've been consistently avoiding over the last few months."

Oh, I have not!

You most certainly have. (Of course you can easily tell us where you think you answered this if you disagree.)

I specified all sorts of historic notations of growing seasons, general weather conditions and so on from the records of mankind before actual temperature readings were being taken.

And how do you think the sources you championed a few months ago managed to figure out the data to the precision that they did? You seem to think this is nitpicking, but it's pretty fundamental to backing up the physical part of your world view (as well as your desire to be on board with global warming skeptic talking points).

These historical records are often confirmed by archaeological digs, although the dates that are given are often pretty out of whack from my perspective.

Yeah, it’s a pity that the data just never adds up for YECs, isn’t it...?

"10. ”He [a generalized atheist] is, however, certainly a great danger to himself, for if he successfully deludes himself into believing his own philosophy he will be subject to harsh judgement by his Maker later on.”

What if you have it wrong and, say, the Muslims have it right and you’d be subjected to whatever happens to “infidels” in Islam after you die? Wouldn’t that mean you’re being a great danger to yourself?"

If that is true, yes.

Congratulations – we’re up to number 10, and it’s the first truthful non-evasive answer you’ve given!

"11. "Maybe we don't have recorded temperatures, but grapes growing in England and Greenland being green are evidences nonetheless."

And what dating methods are used to determine the age of those grapes and that vegetation? Anything that is remotely consistent with a young Earth? If you accept that, say, radiometric dating indicates the age of something to be 1,000 years, would you still accept it if it indicates the age of something to be 10,000 years? If not, then you can't accept the dating of 1,000 years either, as the entire method, according to you, is questionable."

I'll be posting on that, probably on Monday the 9th of July or thereabouts.

Well, we’re up to July 21st, and you’ve made some snide remarks about lack of comments speaking for themselves – can we take it that your lack of presenting this post should speak for itself?

"14. Anyhow, how is it possible that there even ARE Christians in jail? Shouldn't they all be atheists?"

Some become Christians after being jailed. Most were just bad at being Christian. I don't think that atheists will necessarily break the law, what I do say is that an atheist has no absolute law he is sworn to follow. A Christian has an absolute moral code, but he may yet break it.

a. What data are you basing this on?

b. Were most of the alleged 11% bad at being Christian? Or are you going by some different numbers here?

c. I have yet to see anything to support the notion that "God-made" law is more absolute or non-flexible than man-made law.

"15. So, if atheists, by your own admission, are able to lead responsible, peaceful lives, without bothering or harming anyone....why bother?Surely you'd rather have a peaceful atheist than a violent Christian?"

I don't hate atheists and I don't discriminate against them. It would be more pleasant to live next to a peaceful atheist than a violent Christian. But from his point of view, I would rather he would become a Christian for his own sake rather than my own.

It's simple. I believe atheists will be judged and go to hell. I don't want them to go to hell. I would rather tell them about Christ and be rejected than not have the gumption to at least mention it to them.

If you were in a room full of people and saw one of those movie "bombs' with the red digital readout counting down and it showed three minutes left, would you just leave quietly and let everyone else have the choice as to whether they want to notice the bomb, or would you yell at everyone to run out of the door? Me? I'm yelling!

Good answer. I don’t agree with your basic asssumptions, but this actually is a case where worldview counts (as opposed to when you inappropriately try to wedge it into scientific subjects).

Afghanistan needs a Commander in Chief!

Quote of the Day

TheReligionofPeace.com

Contributors

The best thing to give to your enemy is forgiveness; to an opponent, tolerance; to a friend, your heart; to your child, a good example; to a father, deference; to your mother, conduct that will make her proud of you; to yourself, respect; to all men, charity.Francis Maitland Balfour

The ultimate determinate in the struggle now going on for the world will not be bombs and rockets but a test of wills and ideas – a trial of spiritual resolve; the values we hold, the beliefs we cherish and the ideas to which we are dedicated — Ronald Reagan

Stop ENDA!

What is the network dealio?

Professional contact information

Please email radarbinder@comcast.net to contact me professionally. I consult and sell software, hardware and services to companies, organizations and government entities throughout North America.

Support Patriotic Resistance!

Welcome to Patriot Action Network 2.0!

Followers

Creation.com

The best thing to give to your enemy is forgiveness; to an opponent, tolerance; to a friend, your heart; to your child, a good example; to a father, deference; to your mother, conduct that will make her proud of you; to yourself, respect; to all men, charity.Francis Maitland Balfour